Training Log Archive: cedarcreekIn the 7 days ending Sep 21, 2007:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| « | » |
| » now | ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Sa | Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | |||||||
Sunday Sep 16, 2007 #
Event: Cuyahoga Valley Billygoat
ARDF 80m race 2:02:00 [4] ***
shoes: Nike Trail (Blue)
80m US ARDF Championships at Fallen Leaf Lake, near Lake Tahoe, CA.
I remember complaints about the FLL map from the 2003 US Championships, and I asked Bob Cooley what they were. He said there was a lot of unmapped undergrowth. As it turned out, I only found a little unmapped undergrowth, but I screwed up the course so bad it only hurt me a little.
How did I screw up?
1. I lost contact.
2. I didn't take accurate bearings when I had the chance.
3. As a result of 1 and 2, I made some terrible route choices.
4. I got discouraged in the massive patches of 3rd green or slash undergrowth (not an IOF symbol), and didn't push hard enough.
At the same time, I do have some criticisms.
2 had no business being where it was. I think there was a powerline nearby, and that's the only way I can reconcile my bearings (short of me screwing up completely, which I just don't accept). It was 2 or 3 cycles from the trail for me, but only about 200m, so you know it was thick.
This might not be fair---I thought 2 was higher up the hill than it was: Once I got 2, I had to decide to descend to the flatter area, or go cross-hill trying to miss huge areas of thick green. It seemed like the only reasonable thing to do was to go cross-hill. Interestingly, people who had to get both 2 and 5 probably should have gotten 5 after 2, and didn't have the difficult choice to make for 3 from 2. That would have really helped.
I told Bob Cooley that I would have liked the course better if the numbers were reversed. He let us get too far down the corridor before getting cross-bearings for 3, 4, and 5. 3 was very close to a big hill, and that greatly influenced my decision to cross-hill to 3. Had an earlier signal shown it to be clear of the hill, going cross-hill would have been much less of a good choice. I have been thinking about whether 3 is unfair, but I have to think that it is not. Part of the question is: Did many people initially place it up the hill?, but another part of it is: Isn't this a test of fitness as well as navigation and DFing ability? Isn't near a hill legitimate? I need to consult about this question.
At 3, I was about 125m from the control, and yet it took me 2 cycles---about 10 minutes---to reach it. It was thorny, slow undergrowth. I just couldn't imagine why a control was placed there.
On my way to 4, I encountered the first of the unmapped undergrowth, and I chickened out and took a trail, probably adding on a full cycle (5 minutes).
I had no idea where I was, except near the road, so I aimed for it (going to the finish), and quickly found more undergrowth. If I trusted the map, I would have straightlined, but I didn't, and I added maybe 300 or 400m to my route and took the curvy road into camp. It just didn't seem worth the risk to go cross-country. Later, I found out that people who went straight lost 5 to 10 minutes over my road route. I hate it when chickening out is a better route than being aggressive, but I'm guess I'm glad I knew enough to chicken out.
My 2 hours was good enough for 4th in M40. In the grand scheme of things, I thought this course was better than the 2m course. I felt like one control, 2, just ruined my whole day. I really want to blame the course setter, but I honestly can't. I lost contact. I made the decision to cross-hill from an assumed location way uphill of where I really was. I basically completely screwed up the course from 2 onward.
I need to work on 2 things. I need to just quit messing around and mount a reversed-rosette compass on my 80m receiver. Alternately, I could go back to Gyuri's ruler attachment. Second, I need to run more 80m courses. I have very little confidence running them, and I need to be a lot more familiar with my receiver.
I remember complaints about the FLL map from the 2003 US Championships, and I asked Bob Cooley what they were. He said there was a lot of unmapped undergrowth. As it turned out, I only found a little unmapped undergrowth, but I screwed up the course so bad it only hurt me a little.
How did I screw up?
1. I lost contact.
2. I didn't take accurate bearings when I had the chance.
3. As a result of 1 and 2, I made some terrible route choices.
4. I got discouraged in the massive patches of 3rd green or slash undergrowth (not an IOF symbol), and didn't push hard enough.
At the same time, I do have some criticisms.
2 had no business being where it was. I think there was a powerline nearby, and that's the only way I can reconcile my bearings (short of me screwing up completely, which I just don't accept). It was 2 or 3 cycles from the trail for me, but only about 200m, so you know it was thick.
This might not be fair---I thought 2 was higher up the hill than it was: Once I got 2, I had to decide to descend to the flatter area, or go cross-hill trying to miss huge areas of thick green. It seemed like the only reasonable thing to do was to go cross-hill. Interestingly, people who had to get both 2 and 5 probably should have gotten 5 after 2, and didn't have the difficult choice to make for 3 from 2. That would have really helped.
I told Bob Cooley that I would have liked the course better if the numbers were reversed. He let us get too far down the corridor before getting cross-bearings for 3, 4, and 5. 3 was very close to a big hill, and that greatly influenced my decision to cross-hill to 3. Had an earlier signal shown it to be clear of the hill, going cross-hill would have been much less of a good choice. I have been thinking about whether 3 is unfair, but I have to think that it is not. Part of the question is: Did many people initially place it up the hill?, but another part of it is: Isn't this a test of fitness as well as navigation and DFing ability? Isn't near a hill legitimate? I need to consult about this question.
At 3, I was about 125m from the control, and yet it took me 2 cycles---about 10 minutes---to reach it. It was thorny, slow undergrowth. I just couldn't imagine why a control was placed there.
On my way to 4, I encountered the first of the unmapped undergrowth, and I chickened out and took a trail, probably adding on a full cycle (5 minutes).
I had no idea where I was, except near the road, so I aimed for it (going to the finish), and quickly found more undergrowth. If I trusted the map, I would have straightlined, but I didn't, and I added maybe 300 or 400m to my route and took the curvy road into camp. It just didn't seem worth the risk to go cross-country. Later, I found out that people who went straight lost 5 to 10 minutes over my road route. I hate it when chickening out is a better route than being aggressive, but I'm guess I'm glad I knew enough to chicken out.
My 2 hours was good enough for 4th in M40. In the grand scheme of things, I thought this course was better than the 2m course. I felt like one control, 2, just ruined my whole day. I really want to blame the course setter, but I honestly can't. I lost contact. I made the decision to cross-hill from an assumed location way uphill of where I really was. I basically completely screwed up the course from 2 onward.
I need to work on 2 things. I need to just quit messing around and mount a reversed-rosette compass on my 80m receiver. Alternately, I could go back to Gyuri's ruler attachment. Second, I need to run more 80m courses. I have very little confidence running them, and I need to be a lot more familiar with my receiver.
Saturday Sep 15, 2007 #
ARDF 2m race 1:28:00 [4] ***
shoes: Nike Trail (Blue)
2m US ARDF Championships at Fallen Leaf Lake, near Lake Tahoe, California. The start triangle was near the Fallen Leaf Lake Dam, and the course used mostly the flatter areas along 89, but did have some hills.
I've got to say that I'm not at all unhappy with the course. But I also feel like I need to get this off my chest.
I thought it was somewhat unfair.
The start was neat in that you had very little to go on. It was clear that 4 was the first T, but I was shocked that it was up on a hillside where the most obvious exit was right back down the hill you climbed to find it. I saw Bryan Ackerly and George Neal leaving when the T was still transmitting, and I was surprised how far I had to climb to find it.
On the way to 4, I had noticed that 1 and 3 were to the north, but that 3 was stronger, so as I left 4, I was thinking 3 might be next. I got really lucky in that 3 was on as I was very close to it. I didn't realize it because I had one last little spur in the way, but I was about 50 or 75m from 3 when it went off. I walked the next 4 minutes, looking for 3, but didn't find anything. When it came on, I had to run back about 100m.
I was really lucky with 3. Many others, particularly fast people, only had a clean signal to it once they were well past it. It also was another dogleg. The only reasonable approach was from the east, and yet most people leaving it would leave to the east. I had several people pass me going in as I left it when it was already off.
By all accounts, 2 and 5 were fair and even cool placements.
1 is probably the best placed control. It was in a location of low visibility, which I don't like, but it was well-placed as a difficult location to DF. Others might disagree with me, though. The visibility might be unfair. In my opinion, this was a good location.
The leg to the finish corridor was a good advanced orienteering leg. It required crossing a stream with earthbanks, though, and this brings up another criticism of the course: I have a hard time imagining beginners (particularly the 12-year old first time ARDFer) completing this course with even one transmitter. At the banquet I recommended that future events have a "beginner's track" where they would find transmitters on the other band while the championship event used the "primary band". That way the beginner's course could have appropriate difficulty for anyone who wanted to try it.
My 88 minutes was good enough for 2nd in M40, although it's kind of tainted for me that the results appear to show the unfairness of the course.
I've got to say that I'm not at all unhappy with the course. But I also feel like I need to get this off my chest.
I thought it was somewhat unfair.
The start was neat in that you had very little to go on. It was clear that 4 was the first T, but I was shocked that it was up on a hillside where the most obvious exit was right back down the hill you climbed to find it. I saw Bryan Ackerly and George Neal leaving when the T was still transmitting, and I was surprised how far I had to climb to find it.
On the way to 4, I had noticed that 1 and 3 were to the north, but that 3 was stronger, so as I left 4, I was thinking 3 might be next. I got really lucky in that 3 was on as I was very close to it. I didn't realize it because I had one last little spur in the way, but I was about 50 or 75m from 3 when it went off. I walked the next 4 minutes, looking for 3, but didn't find anything. When it came on, I had to run back about 100m.
I was really lucky with 3. Many others, particularly fast people, only had a clean signal to it once they were well past it. It also was another dogleg. The only reasonable approach was from the east, and yet most people leaving it would leave to the east. I had several people pass me going in as I left it when it was already off.
By all accounts, 2 and 5 were fair and even cool placements.
1 is probably the best placed control. It was in a location of low visibility, which I don't like, but it was well-placed as a difficult location to DF. Others might disagree with me, though. The visibility might be unfair. In my opinion, this was a good location.
The leg to the finish corridor was a good advanced orienteering leg. It required crossing a stream with earthbanks, though, and this brings up another criticism of the course: I have a hard time imagining beginners (particularly the 12-year old first time ARDFer) completing this course with even one transmitter. At the banquet I recommended that future events have a "beginner's track" where they would find transmitters on the other band while the championship event used the "primary band". That way the beginner's course could have appropriate difficulty for anyone who wanted to try it.
My 88 minutes was good enough for 2nd in M40, although it's kind of tainted for me that the results appear to show the unfairness of the course.